Deans' stroke musings: Acceleration based Activity Levels during Subacute Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Acceleration based Activity Levels during Subacute Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation

You'll have to ask your doctor what this knowledge will be used for to help your recovery. I could see no use for it but to blame the patients for not being active enough. No testing on your doctors and therapists activity levels on your behalf to get recovered.

Acceleration based Activity Levels during Subacute Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation

Procedia Technology 27 ( 2017 ) 120 – 121

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect 2212-0173 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Biosensors 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2017.04.053 Biosensors 2016 Margit Alt Murphy a,b *, Sofi Andersson a,b , Anna Danielsson a , Fredrik Ohlsson c , Jan Wipenmyr

Abstract

People after stroke have difficulties to reach sufficient physi cal activity level during their rehabilitation and particularly outside the therapy time. We aim to quantify activity levels and investigat e differences in motor activity in weekdays and weekends in a subacute stage after stroke. Data from multiple three-axis accelerometers was collected during two 48h sessions in 11 patients . The activity level and symmetry indices were sensitive to variations in weekend and weekdays. This information is valuable in rehabilitation planning and management and enables identification of those in risk of low physical activity and inactivity. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Biosensors 2016. Keywords: Accelerometry, upper extremity; arm; stroke; activity; assessment 1. Introduction The number of studies using accelerometers is constantly increasing, but evidence of clinical implications is still unclear and data loss is not always reported [1]. The real-world activity after stroke is not well described [2].This study aims to quantify activity levels and investigate differences in motor activity in weekdays and weekends in persons undergoing rehabilitation in subacute stage after stroke. 3. Results A comparative analysis of the SMA and ratio distributions showed that the activity was lower and the paretic arm was used less on weekends. An analysis of missing data revealed that from all five units over two sessions full two-day data could be obtained in 74% of measurements. A further, 12 % had full data at least from one day, while in 14 % data was missing for more than one day, partly due to patient compliance(6.5%) and partly due toBluetooth, memory card or battery failure of the sensor unit(s) (7.5%). Section 2 at link.